The Infallibility of Doctrine

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by wil

I've always got to check out definitions.
Quote:
in·fal·li·ble
Etymology:Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallibleDate:15th century 1 : incapable of error : unerring <an infallible memory>
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain <an infallible remedy>
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals
And I am I correct in noting we are talking about doctrine, not scripture?

lol... Obviously not scripture, which is riddled with nothing but error and also stories/events that are not possible.... In a scientific sense..... Then again doctine obviously comes from the Latin for Doctrina, which suggests that it is teachings to a certain extent from scripture.... So "Incapable of error"? I would beg to differ lol...

[Thomas]

Hi 17th —

That's why Catholic Doctrine does not say Scripture does not contain any errors.

Rather it says it transmits the truths God wishes to be made known, without error ... there's the difference.

Thomas

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi 17th —

That's why Catholic Doctrine does not say Scripture does not contain any errors.

Rather it says it transmits the truths God wishes to be made known, without error ... there's the difference.

Thomas

It's just like a contract or a lawyer statement in a court.... Kinda smells "fresh" and is just nothing but loopholes for excuses ;\ If I were a catholic that wouldn't instill much confidence in my faith if it's "what god wishes to be made known" You know? No, I suppose you don't...

[China Cat Sunflower]

Scripture and doctrine seem to have pretty much evolved together in the case of Christian origins. Scripture is always written from a particular point of view and for an intended contemporary audience. Where Christianity has appropriated older material it is somewhat cantilevered over, rather than organically engaged with that scripture so doctrine in that sense seems to propound upon the text.

Chris

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Scripture and doctrine seem to have pretty much evolved together in the case of Christian origins. Scripture is always written from a particular point of view and for an intended contemporary audience. Where Christianity has appropriated older material it is somewhat cantilevered over, rather than organically engaged with that scripture so doctrine in that sense seems to propound upon the text.

Chris

How else can you have doctrine without scripture? Or vice versa? (That is a question btw, not a dig.)

[Thomas]

Hi 17th ...

I suppose it depends on your viewpoint.

I might add that "... In a scientific sense" is also a wonderful cop-out, isn't it? Especially when Scripture does not claim to be a scientific document (in the secular sense)

The point is, no-one offers an argument based on reason or logical as to why it cannot be infallible. Just the assertion that it can't because they do not accept the foundation premise of Christianity as such.

Before anyone leaps to the challenge, might I add that we've had some of the finest minds on the planet arguing the case both for and against, so I think I can say here, without meaning to insult anyone's intelligence, that I doubt that such an argument is forthcoming.

Thomas

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Before anyone leaps to the challenge, might I add that we've had some of the finest minds on the planet arguing the case both for and against, so I think I can say here, without meaning to insult anyone's intelligence, that I doubt that such an argument is forthcoming.

Thomas

lol, If religion was something I took serious with a passion I would easily match those arguments... Alas this is just something to kill time while at work.

-edit-
Something to ponder on, god is the perfect one aye? Man is an idiot who is far from perfect and makes many an error.... Aye? Who was it that actually wrote the bible and the Doctrines? god? Or man? :\ So to kick off tons of this could have been taken down in error so, you have error to begin with, also the meaning to it all, has god personally come down off his throne to explain it all? Or is it just some man sittin perched all high and mighty above the rest saying how he -thinks- it is to be? Either way, I do not believe you can say it is or isn't but I will go with it isn't simply because I don't like the idea of a god.

[Thomas]

Actually, I should qualify the above statement.

St Thomas Aquinas has demonstrated in the Summa that everything turns on whether one accepts Revelation, or not.

If one does, and that's the big if, then the argument unfolds along the lines of the Aristotelian model. As he posed the argument in the thirteenth century, and it still stands as a model of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian metaphysics.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Scripture and doctrine seem to have pretty much evolved together in the case of Christian origins. Scripture is always written from a particular point of view and for an intended contemporary audience. Where Christianity has appropriated older material it is somewhat cantilevered over, rather than organically engaged with that scripture so doctrine in that sense seems to propound upon the text.

Chris

Well the doctrine was there before the Scripture, in the sense there was a Christian message, a Christian community and a Christian praxis before the New Testament was written.

Thomas

[AndrewX]

I think you misunderstand, Thomas. I am not "at loggerheads" regarding what's going on here. It's no different than it's ever been. You've been attacking my own beliefs, and those of anyone else who even MENTIONS Theosophy ... for several years now. Finally, however, we have your admission, in your own words, that "you are HERE TO CONDEMN."

At least you are finally honest about that ... fwiw.

Sorry, I didn't think that was what any Comparative-Religion forum was all about, much less this one. Some of us apparently ENJOY tearing into other people's belief systems, and attempting to KNOCK DOWN everything this is put on the table in a discussion ... even to the point of taking the proverbial ax to the trunk of the TREE. I'm glad my roots go deep enough to help keep this tree alive ... even despite ax-blow after ax-blow from our dear, master theologian.

I mean, hey - don't let me stop you from your little crusade. Keep that Spirit of the Inquisition alive, Thomas. Keep condemning others, for DARING to ask QUESTIONS, and for DARING to choose to believe OTHER - than what you and your Church tell us we SHOULD believe.

Have a nice day, and a nice time on your thread, telling us all how infallible you and YOUR messengers are ...

Just know that for every slanderous word and false accustation against OUR messengers, you will have to answer.

The difference between you and me, Thomas, is that I am not afraid to take you to task for dodging the issues, for changing the subject, and for BASHING another person's philosophy when you run out of arguments ... or when you know you don't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Your effort to turn that around, and to accuse me of ad hominem, is a pretty thin, LAME comeback indeed. I simply say, BACK UP YOUR BASHING, Thomas, instead of just launching ATTACK after ATTACK ... then claiming, "Oh, I'm just engaging you on the level of PHILOSOPHY," as if this excuses your Grand Inquisition and Albigensian Crusade. Your clothing is different, brother Jesuit, and your hair has a different part, but your ruthlessness and assiduousness have not changed ...

And no, I don't hesitate ... to criticize you, for SLANDERING HPB, and for babbling on, again & again, about how UNFOUNDED the Theosophical teachings appear to you. I don't have any problem whatsoever asking you to STOP being a JERK, and to talk about specific IDEAS, and to ADDRESS the specific, firsthand teachings of HPB, and other Theosophists ... or writers in the Theosophical tradition.

But you cannot do that, can you. Instead, it is YOU that constantly employ the straw man tactic, attempting to dodge the entire Theosophical worldview, altogether by simply saying, "Oh, this is not a RIGOROUS philosophy ... it is metaphysically UNSOUND ... it focuses exclusively on COSMOLOGY, and MY theology penetrates beyond to the TRUE NATURE OF GOD."

HOGWASH

I have shown, on another thread, that this is not the case. And I will happily REVISIT that argument, ANY TIME YOU LIKE, if you find the backbone.

But as we have seen, that discussion simply DROPPED AWAY, and once I demonstrated that we speak of the SAME, exact concepts, pointing to the SAME, exact Reality behind (or beyond) those concepts ... Thomas decided to take a vacation. I suppose the fishing in that spot became a little difficult, eh my friend?

Not convenient any more to continue a conversation, WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN UP.

Ah well, I don't blame you. There you were, telling me I couldn't see past the tree in front of me, or the little forest clearing in which we both happen to find ourselves ... and suddenly you find that I'm telling you about the forest itself, what it looks like from over there, not to mention from above, from below, even from a Wholistic perspective ... and from the simple, natural level of Being Itself.

No, I don't blame you for bailing.

Btw, this is a brief reminder, according to the Wikipedia entry, of what a straw man argument really is:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.

And Thomas, every time you sit there and speak of Theosophy as unfounded, metaphysically unsound, a rip-off of other religious & philosophical ideas, etc. ... you are creating a STRAW-MAN image, or depiction of the Gupta Vidya.

For the record, Theosophists and others who have expressed interest in the Theosophical path (myself, et al) here at C-R, do NOT tell you on these forums - AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN - that "the Roman Catholic or Christian theology is unfounded, metaphysically unsound, a rip-off of other religious & philosophical ideas, etc."

We have NEVER said that. In fact, the closest that even I have ever come, is to point toward the EXISTING traditions of the time ... and to bring to light the fact that Christianity "borrowed" from - all of these various belief systems. Of course, this co-opting of ideas from every tradition, both exoteric & esoteric, is pretty much a rip-off as I see it ... but I think it is rather jarring to say so, and I wouldn't blame someone for immediately becoming defensive if I said that about his or her religion (spiritual path, worldview, etc.).

The problem, Thomas, is that you speak to me, and often enough to Nick, and occasionally others, AS IF WE DON'T HAVE FEELINGS, or as if OUR SPIRITUAL PHILOSOPHY AND WORLDVIEW DOESN'T MATTER TO US.

There is no basic Respect for the experiences we have been through, the challenges we have been faced with - and choices we have made, or the efforts we have made to answer the same Call of the Soul (or Spirit) which you claim ... to have received, and answered. You may not speak in these precise terms about such a Call, and you may or may not refer directly to your answer, either. Yet all of us simply take for granted - we make the ASSUMPTION - that such has taken place, and that if it hadn't, you wouldn't very likely even be here!

A pity, that in all your pomp and glory, as you prattle on about the learned doctors and their wisdom, you only know how to look down your nose at us, and FORCE DISTINCTIONS ... because we have come to Truth by a different Path - and a Path that SUITS us, PERFECTLY, I might add.

There is so much that could be discussed, so much that might be explored ... but there is absolutely NOTHING spiritually significant that can take place, and NO dialogue that will be meaningful, as long as we are -- THOSE misguided Theosophists, and while you are - in contrast - enlightened, spiritually `with it,' and `SAVED.'

Check carefully. Where there is a superiority complex, it will continue to get in the way ... whether as spiritual pride, or simply as a bit too much pluck over one's worldly wit & wisdom. These are not far apart, either, connected by a slippery slope, which I think you know ... every bit as well as I.

And I won't deny my own shortcomings ... my own missing of the mark. But I will also not simply stand by, and say nothing about your deliberate efforts at humiliating other people. Turn the other cheek, yes, as best as I'm able. Put up with a bit of vanity and presumptuousness, yes ... this is par for the course where personalities grow too big for their boots, from time to time.

But when you feel it is your RIGHT, and in fact - somehow, in some sick, twisted fashion, your spiritual DUTY - to seize another man, and all that he represents, by the throat, and to try and choke the proverbial life out of him ... do you really think your Blessed Saviour would advocate for that man's total, pacifistic acquiescence?

We have had this discussion at C-R before, and most tend to believe that no, a man has a right to defend himself. Remember that children's saying, "Sticks and stones ..." Well my friend, it may be true enough that "names shall never hurt us," as - at best - they can "damage" our pride. But that doesn't mean it therefore becomes okay, let alone ADMIRABLE, acceptable, much less NOBLE to enter a WAR OF IDEAS ... and to try and whittle one's opponent down by relentlessly attacking his belief system.

Think you that what we Theosophical types (if you must cast us all in this way) believe, is ANY less Spiritually significant and important to us, than what YOU believe, as a Roman Catholic?

Do you hear ME, or NICK, babbling on about Rene Guenon, St. Thomas Aquinas, or ANY Roman Catholic or Christian figure ... as being A FRAUD, A KOOK, MORALLY BANKRUPT, A RIP-OFF ARTIST regarding other ideas, etc.? If so, please show me WHERE.

The most I will concede, is that I myself have stated that Rat-zinger ought to watch his mouth, but did I even say, in saying this, that the man is ANY of the above? I will even grant that we all make mistakes, and that he may simply have made one, or two, etc. And immediately, Sir Thomas launches a DEFENSIVE BATTERY of post after post after post ... not realizing, all the while, that this is the LEAST of what a Theosophist feels, as you LAY INTO our Respected and Revered Society Founder.

No, Thomas, ONE of us here is TRYING, in VAIN I will point out, to KNOCK DOWN something which he doesn't like to see standing. And, since you leave me no choice, I will clarify that what you have engaged in, and what I have foolishly submitted myself to (in ignorance - I admit it, though not without folly or some recognition on my own part) ... is an old-fashioned, COCK-FIGHT.

But guess what kind of ROOSTER this really refers to.

So, KEEP TRYING TO KNOCK IT DOWN. There is a spiritual equivalent of Viagra, I'm sure, but I prefer to deal with this on my own terms ... and using all that I have been taught, not just in my undergraduate philosophy class, or at some kind of institution of higher education, concerned above all else with REPUTATION AND PRESTIGE.

True, a sincere disciple should remember ... that his reputation is everything. Your assertion that you are any more a disciple than myself, at this point, would speak volumes - yet show me ONE PLACE where I have ever said, implied or even remotely suggested that you are "less of a disciple," and less of a spiritual student, or aspirant, than myself.

How easy it must be, when one's belief system allows one in apparent `good conscience' (a new definition of this expression for me, I assure you) ... to simply SIZE UP another person's PHILOSOPHY and SPIRITUAL WORLDVIEW, then determine (by some set of standards which we have yet to see you produce, Thomas) -- conveniently and dismissively, that the other person's beliefs warrant his CONDEMNATION ... and FURTHER, that WE are FIT, and EMPOWERED (by WHAT agency I am not quite sure) TO DO THE CONDEMNING.

We see precisely this assertion, and effort, every time you attack the Theosophists, Thomas, with a clear, bold affirmation of your Crusade here ... and increasingly I begin to feel quite the fool, for engaging in your little p*ssing contest ... your cockfight. Freudian fears aside, I am embarrassed that I have let myself get dragged along this far, much less dusted myself off, gotten back on the horse, and played your little game of JOUST.

In a more noble era, maybe the tilting would be understandable, but the Fair Maiden to be won by this tournament is Someone I know to be accessible to us all ... and she will not be the SPOILS of either `victor,' nor can she be SPOILT at all, merely by your incessant jabs, or by your banging on about how destitute our Philosophy supposedly is of the Spirit of Wisdom.

And just WHAT exactly, is the official Church doctrine, regarding Sophia, regarding the Divine Feminine, regarding WOMAN?

Thomas, I could have rested my case about three years ago.

But, in all fairness, since I have bothered to reply on this thread in so lengthy a fashion, I know I must sit through at least one, last BASHING.

So, have at it, and make it a good one, eh? Get it all out of your system, as I'm pretty much done with playing your little JOUST/cockfight/p*ssing contest game ... and need to move on to something that's actually productive - not to mention POSITIVE.

Frankly, when it comes to Theosophy, I don't think you have it in you.

You are nothing but a PURE, NEGATIVE CHANNEL for Hatred, Bitterness, Destructive Criticism, Calumny, Misinformation and MUD-slinging.

I DARE you to try and come up with TEN positive things about the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY and Movement, during or since HPB's day ... without cutting and pasting from some kind of external site or authority.

Challenge me to do the SAME, with regard to today's Roman Catholic Church, and LET'S SEE WHO FARES THE BETTER. That's the LAST little challenge I'll issue in your cockfight. And you know, I don't care, whether you take me up on it or not!

[Thomas]

Hi 17th —

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

lol, If religion was something I took serious with a passion I would easily match those arguments... Alas this is just something to kill time while at work.

Sigh ... then we're both in the same boat — too busy earning a living to live a life, or make a fortune. If you could match Aquinas, then you're fortune would be assured, and your fame would long outlive you.

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Something to ponder on, god is the perfect one aye? Man is an idiot who is far from perfect and makes many an error.... Aye?

We don't view man as by nature an idiot ... which demands almost us much faith in ourselves as in our Creator! But we don't believe that man is perfect, either. And his errors are numerous.

In fact the whole idea behind original sin is that, following the philosophical notion of God being Perfect, we do not accept the idea that he made a cock-up when he created man ... so if there's a cock-up somewhere, the evidence suggests its us.

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Who was it that actually wrote the bible and the Doctrines? god? Or man? :\

Well we believe in Providence, so we would argue that point. We would say both. That's why Scripture is subject to so much philosophical inquiry, and why the first Christians snapped up the Greek methodology as being the best method to hand ... and one which endures ...

The continual unfolding of philosophy, the continual new work and insights being extracted from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle et al show their genius and their rigour — a genius and a rigour that is the common heritage of us all. The whole philosophical life of the West is indebted to them, and founded on them.

Equally the great humanitarians. In fact some of the most 'savage' had tremendous insight ... if had we listened to the words of the Native Americans instead of slaughtering them for the gold on which they stood, global warming might be nothing more than speculation!

Someone read me some Greek poetry from a pre-Chrstian era ... we are the same people, we haven't changed a bit, in our nature. Just improved the technology. And not without a burdensome cost — the more we create, the more we want, and yet we are astounded by 'simple' Third World communitites that have nothing, and yet are happy.

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

So to kick off tons of this could have been taken down in error so, you have error to begin with, also the meaning to it all, has god personally come down off his throne to explain it all?

Again, we believe God does have an expectation of man rising to his true nature.

At worst I would say God does not demand we get it right, and rewards our effort in trying.

But even as a pure humanist, the basic doctrines of the Great Traditions are all 'infallible' against the best of human ethics and morality: Love thy neighbour ... focus on the Real ... find a greater happiness in giving
rather than receiving ... in the realm of human ideas and ideals, leaving God aside, the messge is worth the effort.

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Or is it just some man sittin perched all high and mighty above the rest saying how he -thinks- it is to be?

Again, against the history of ideas, the religious ideals that survive have been winnowed by reason and philosophy. There's a ton of discarded ideas for every jewel. The ones we hang on to suggest the speaker knew something of what he talked about, and that is valuable in itself.

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

Either way, I do not believe you can say it is or isn't but I will go with it isn't simply because I don't like the idea of a god.

That's OK. But that doesn't present a truth, or even an argument. That's your choice. What we believe, really, is what comprises our faith. Back to Aquinas again. If you don't accept the basic premise, then there can be no discussion.

I do accept that it is an informed choice, however ... you have selected from the pool of ideas, and taken a stand. I accept that.

I'm not arguing the right-ness of Christian doctrine in the face of others, I'm simply asking for a comparative frame of reference. I don't for a moment expect anyone to 'buy' infallibility just because I'm a Catholic.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hello Andrew.

OK. I think you know I will fundamentally disagree on some of your recent assertions, but this game of words is getting us nowhere.

So can I extend the olive branch of peace?

Can we agree that I shall make no further reference at all to TS doctrine, unless invited?

In return all I ask is that you make no further reference to a subjective criticism of mine?

I am aware that you hold a teaching on your understanding of who the Founder of my tradition is, radically different from our perception of his Person and his Message. That is a part of your doctrine, and I am conscious that you might find it necessary to counterpoint TS doctrine with Christian orthodoxy in making a point, and understand that.

I will not reply or contest any of the Theosophical doctrines on that point, but will, if you will allow, maintain the right to respond only if and when I think that Christian doctrine has been inaccurately or unfairly presented, and only to present the matter in question from an northodox understanding. I will make no reference to the TS position nor any criticism of its presentation of mine.

I think that is fair? You of course would be free to do likewise.

+++

I am aware that this is a comparative religion forum. I do feel, however, that it is possible to make such references objectively without the need for voicing subjective responses.

I am open and willing to engage in discussion that might highlight issues, but will avoid subjective responses on my own part. I will stick strictly to arguments founded on theological and philosophical teachings, offering them as support of my position, as I would in discussion with any other tradition.

For my part, I will seek no direct response from Theosophy. Might I also add that to my best recollection I have rarely quoted and questioned a specific Theosophical text to initiate a discussion, whereas I have responded many times to negative TS criticisms of the orthodox teaching, especially with regard to the interpretation of Scripture.

So let's end this recrimination here.

I am happy to put our differences aside. We are both aware of the position each of us takes with regard to the other on the question of interpretation, but these are personal matters. I do believe we can conduct ourselves in gentlemanly fashion, objectively, for the benefit of ourselves and others who might share an interest.

So what do you say ... do we have a deal ... if my proposition is unacceptable, can we iron something out between us as a code of conduct within Forum guidelines?

In hope,

Thomas

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The whole rests, of course, on the idea of a Personal God.

However, what I would like to ask is:
Do other religious traditions draw a distinction between 'infallible' and 'reliable' with regard to their sacra doctrina?

or put another way, how 'dependable' is a text, and what certitude can an adherent draw from it?

What effect has this on a text's exegesis?

Thomas

Without a Personal God, we have a human (the Buddha) – who taught for many years but his teachings were not written down until long after his death. So clearly there will be errors caused by failings of memory, translation, transcription, loss of texts…

Lost without translation?

Where does that leave infallibility?

Maybe this is one reason why the Buddha gave us the Kalama sutra:

"Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.”

Kalama Sutta


Of course, the Kalama sutra may be fundamentally flawed!

s.

[AndrewX]

Thomas,

I am interested in a discussion of ideas, and I believe that if ideas bear any real merit, they should be allowed to stand - or fall - on their own, without feeling a need to prop them up by citing authorities. I realize that there are several good reasons, both at C-R and in modern academia, for citing sources ... and that is something I have tried to do as often as possible. This is largely so that anyone interested will be able to follow up, do investigation on their own, and also observe that these ideas which I speak of collectively as `the esoteric philosophy' (or the Ageless Wisdom), are not arbitrary, and have not been invented in the past ~130 years.

I feel, that if we are a point of disagreement, you should feel free to make a critique of the philosophy itself, but only by addressing certain, specific points ... as examples of your accusations that we do not deal with "meta-cosmology," for instance. Or, if you yourself have evidence that what has been presented was only cobbled together (by HPB or otherwise) - without providing proper citations ... then by all means, take her, or me, or whomever to task for that!

But, in the same fashion that you yourself do not like what you have called ad hominem attacks, I find this sort of thing equally offensive, when addressed to the character and person of a DECEASED woman (and/or her deceased cohort). If you must attack someone for doing shoddy research, or perhaps for being a charlatan, then direct your accusations toward myself. For I, technically alive - and presently capable of at least providing some sort of rebuttal - should prove much more capable of countering your arguments (or at least, attempting to) ... than a collection of dead people!

You see? I would rather receive, address and if need be, own up to my own failures to embody the Theosophical Ideal(s) ... than to stand by and see you attack the character of HPB, et al ... and seek to dismiss the entire Theosophical philosophy (and way of life, that entire approach to both spirituality and religion) in one fell swoop, with a hasty brush of the hand.

We can speak as much, or as little, about Theosophy as you like, just as you will find that I am sometimes interested in discussions on Christian theology and teachings ... while at other times I am not the least bit interested, and would have to be goaded rather forcefully even to give my opinion. But I don't think you should hold back at all when you feel that the Christian teachings as you know and/or believe in them (as you interpret them, and/or as you have found that Roman Catholics tend to understand them) ... are being misrepresented.

On the Christian forums, I think you'll find that Nick, myself, et al will - at most - express a different opinion, perhaps also give some reason for why we believe otherwise. We may cite sources, and speak of other traditions, yet ultimately we will not say, "This is what you must believe, and this is HOW you must believe it!"

By your extending (everyone) the same courtesy on the ALT and ALT-ESOTERIC forums, I think we will be on the same page ... such that all continue to be free to express their individual opinions, even to say, "THIS is what (I think, or I have found) most Roman Catholics, most Buddhist, most Muslims, etc. to believe about ---" ... but ultimately, there should be no need to press the issue. After all, it is a discussion forum, and it's here for us all to read, to choose whether - and how - we want to respond, and to which threads ... as well as to start new threads when we have questions, or have something we want to share.

I do believe we are all on the same page here, more or less, and I continue to visualize this cyber-agora as but the modern, electronic equivalent of ancient Athens ... with some of the ready references of a modern-day Library of Alexandria fairly close at hand. I hope that there might come a growing recognition, or belief in the reality of a cyber-Temple ... as the Interfaith aspects and nature of C-R increasingly come to light, but this is something that can only happen with the cooperation, and determination, of each one of us. Even to approach the Temple steps ... (I cannot finish the sentence)

Thank you, Thomas, for the olive branch, and know that I do appreciate your willingness to approach things "in gentlemanly fashion." I will seek to likewise, for my part ... and I look forward to future discussions.

Namaskar,

~andrew

[Bruce Michael]

Sometimes truth is forbidden to enter where doctrine dwells.

Truth remains when doctrine has ceased its usefulness. Truth has insight beyond the concepts expounded and ignited in any age.

In order not to negate all possibility of change, no Master may claim infallibility.

-Br.Bruce

We must never give up deciding for ourselves; and decide importantly, in courtesy to the truth.